نشریه مطالعات بین المللی
سال دوم شماره 1 (پیاپی 5، تابستان 1384)

Western states protect human rights -- at least from their own perspective. However, one reason why this commitment to human rights is questioned by much of the rest of the world is that Europe and the United States have both come to apply a set of double standards, following one set of legal standards at home, but a completely different set of standards (and, arguably, no standards at all) in their dealings with those beyond their territorial borders. In Bankovic v. Belgium, the European Court of Human Rights held that the European Convention is “primarily territorial.” In that way, the Contracting States are not bound by the provisions of the Convention in their dealings with those outside of Europe. The American perspective appears to be different but in reality it is not. In Rasul v. Bush, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the “enemy combatants” in the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba were deserving of protection under United States law. In that way, the U.S. seems to extend human rights protection beyond its borders in a way that European states do not. The problem with Rasul is that there is no other place in the world where the U.S. government exercises anywhere near the kind of “sovereignty” that it does at Guantanamo Bay. Because of this, in all likelihood the United States will come to adopt the same kind of legal apartheid system that the European states have developed. For Western states, human rights protection essentially begins – but also ends – at their own national borders. The larger point is that this approach to “human rights” will seriously undermine the entire human rights enterprise.

HIV-AIDS has become the greatest threat to global public health and now presents one of the most formidable challenges to human rights. This paper is an attempt to demonstrate that the right to health is so fundamental that individuals are unable to exercise any other rights if they cannot maintain their health. Human rights paradigm, we submit, provides a potent method of discourse and assessment to get at the root causes of this epidemic. We argue the need for the right to health by focusing on “structural interventions” aimed at changing the social determinants of risk. Without denying the importance of the individually-focused “behavioral interventions,” we contend that social justice is the foundation of public health. As such, income and class inequality, gender inequality, discrimination, and social stigmatization must be seen in this context. Any serious attempt to address public health issues must take into account structural interventions.

The law of armed conflicts developed in an environment where recourse to war was licit. The right to resort to war was an attribute of sovereignty, and any sovereign who thought he had good reason to take up arms was free to do so. The legal environment is today totally different: the war of aggression has been outlawed by the Paris Pact of 27 August 1928 and the United Nations Chapter. The object of the present article is to analyse the relationship between the prohibition of recourse to force (“jus ad bellum”), on the one hand, and the application of the laws and customs of war (“jus in bello”), on the other. This issue is particularly pressing since the just war theory of the past is resurfacing today in various parts of the world.

This paper examines some aspects of islamic legal doctrine in the field of International Criminal and Humanitarian Law. I shall also consider the historical contributions made by Islamic law to contemporary international humanitarian law. My aim is to present both the classical and modern aspects of Islamic International Law denoting the new challenges facing it in today’s world.The Following main questions are considered: Is there historically an Islamic International Law? What is the nature of this Islamic perspective on war crimes? What protections does Islamic law offer to civilians, prisoners of war and others in time of war? Also, does it restrict the conduct of hostilities in some way? What is the Islamic perspective on the crime of Genocide? Is Islamic law consistent with modern criminal law? Finally, what is the position of Islamic law concerning the disposition of the International Criminal Court (ICC), especially on the matter of punishment?For these purposes, in the first section we study the Islamic contribution to the public international law, then, in the second section, we will present Islamic view on the matter of International crimes especially war crimes and crime of genocide. Finally in the last section we discuss the new challenges facing Islamic law.

This articles investigates 9th Presidential election of Iran from the perspective of political science and particularly public policy – making. It focuses on the impact of presidential election on Iranian foreign policy. To this end, the author studies these indications in detail: the overall trends in contemporary world, foreign policy, the variables of foreign policy, the role of role, the need to recongnition, president, the advisors of foreign policy, the contradiction of foreign policy goals, the goals of foreign policy of I. R. of Iran, the decision-making structure in I.R. of Iran, the implementation of foreign policy and finally the decision-making process in Iranian foreign policy. Beside discussion of the roles of peoples, president and presidential election, the author emphasizes that the common wisdom will decide in next election. In this context, the evidences and concepts related people’s attitudes and foreign policy are studied.

The nation and territory of Iraq encountered the issue of national sovereignty and then its consequences in the early years of 20th century. Protectorate, independence, coup d’etat, integration and Pan-Arabism are among the most important factors which have shaped the history of Iraq in 20th century. Beside these, Iraq has had different fluctuations in relations with its neighbours. The advent of two wars and invading Iran and then Kuwait is the product of Ba’thist government of Iraq. Disconformity between demands of Iraqi nation and its government during the last century and ignoring the international norms by Ba’this regime resulted in collapse of this regime by attack of U.S-led international coalition in March 2003 and it created a looming for democracy for Iraq. In this context, this article studies the issue of future of Iraq, democracy in Iraq, Iraqi constitution, political, social, economic and bureaurocratic system and also federalist system. This study attempts to present a political analysis of present and future of Iraq

This essay reviews the articles on the invocation of state responsibility, and notes where they represent progressive development of international Law. It then surveys a wide range of contemporary situations where individuals, other non-state entities, and international organizations involve state responsibility by initiating judicial or other formal complaint proceedings. The essay concludes that, in light of this contemporary practice, the articles usefully advance the codification and development of international Law but do not deal sufficiently with the right of individuals and non-state entities to invoke the responsibility of states.

Since the U.S. and its allies attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq which lead to dissolving their regimes, the questions surrounding the legitimacy of these attacks is still under consideration. International Lawyers specially those from developing countries believe that the legal basis of the use of force against these countries in the name of “American Leadership in cooperation on terrorism combat” is in contradiction to article 4(2) of the U.N. charter and specially the fundamental principle of prohibition on the use of force. On the other side, many of the western theoreticians like those of American neo-conservatives, british governors and also coalition forces involved in this attacks are convinced that the right of self-defense would justify the use of force against Afghanistan and carrying out a pre-emptive strike in self-defense against Iraq for its stores of weapons of mass destruction as a dictatorship regime. Given this views which are in accordance with the principles of morality, the author considers that clear terms must be required to authorise the use of force on a international legal basis.